07-09-97 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUT"~S CITY COUNCIL JULY 9, 1997 Alsop reported that the three to five year ph~ised in approach doesn't m~l<e 1 difterence to the church. The issue is noC the cost associated with s~rinl<ling the building, but rather whether tl~is was a wise use of funds and tl~e fact that Yhe church wo~iltl lil<e to I<eep the builtlin~ lool<in~ niee. Alsop feh there woulc( be son~~e elbowroom on this issue. The City of Bloomington was 1men~ble to worl<ing with LDS on Che defnition of occupancy. The Building Ofiicial reported t~l~at he disc~issed this issue with the building ofticill for the City of'Bloomin~ton. EIe w~ts told that Bloomingtoi~ ~dopted St~atute 1306 a~~~roximately two years a~o, and IIloomin;ton's interpretation about l~he st~at~uCe I<icl<in~ in due to a change in occu~~ancy is the san~~e as LitNe C<inada's. lncreased occupancy load occurs basetl on increased square Poot~ge and usa~e. The increase in square ft~ot~ge of 873 squxre feet prop~sed by L,DS, tal<ing out mechanical 1nd rest room sptice, equates to a~40 to 50 peo~~le increased occu~l~~cy lo~d purs~i~tnt to the E3uildin~ Code. The 13uilding OfTici£tl ~ointed o~it' thaC the code says a~'ea separation walls are not allowable to relieve ti~e properry owner from the requirement to sprinl;le a buildin~. The only option is ~i tin~ie eetension For phasing in Che sprinl<ler system, and that is what the City of Bloomington has allowed. Alsop reported that~ the time extension sit'uaCion outlined previously is not how Bloomingt'on handled tl~e LDS Church addition. 131oomin~ton allowetl the use of an area separation wali as an alternative to sprinl<ling Yhe entire b~iildin~. Alsop stated that he would lil:e t~o find a way Co mal<e both the City and the L,DS Church both happy. Alsop reported that he has t111<ed to the State Fire Marsh~l and explained the verCical tire w111 option. "1"I~e State }~ire Nlarshal indicatetl thaY he w~s not o~posed to Chis option and wo~iicl not overrule the City if i[ accepted this o}~tioi~ in lieu of retrotitting the building. Dale Lan~foss, architect representin~ LDS, reported th~t he h1s h~d discussions with the State'F'ire Marshal, who was very sympathetic to their situ2tion. Lingfoss point~ed o~it Chat cost iC retrofitt'ing is noC the issue, pracCicality is. Lan~foss reported that the State I~ire Ni~rshal indicated that if there is a degree of eqiiivalency which he felt was comp~tible, he would not tleny the project. lt is <t variance situation, however; and the Little Canada City Coui~cil woultl have to act oi~ the vHriance. The Buildin~ OfPicial reported t~h~t the State F~ire Marsh~l does not have jurisdiction over the Bui(dinn~ Code and Chat is where Section 1306 is found. "fhe Building Oflicial reported th~t~ the ~urpose of writin~ Section 1306, or ~ny of the buildin~ codes For that matCer, is so cities 1re not faced with vsuiance requests for every building ~~rojec[. Local j~irisdictions do 4